There is a downright hysteria among many GOP pundits regarding the evils of “socialism” which according to some means any government program or regulation. To some Americans, the only true America is a country in which everything is privatized, corporations are reverred more than governments (and largely allowed to self-regulate through the theoretical unseen hand of markets *insert Kathryn Hahn wink here*), and so on. Yet, this argument really doesn’t make any sense to people living outside the US and doesn’t get nearly as far in the public discourse. Other countries see their tax money as paying for community benefits: roads, parks, fire departments, police force, schools (including universities), unemployment, and national healthcare. They can’t imagine wanting to be in a society in which these things don’t exist, and they understand that taxes pay for them. The better our communities, the more amenities for all, the better our government supports and protects us all, the better the country will do. That’s the line of thinking in other countries, but not always an argument that is viewed positively here.
I was recently listening to an Ezra Klein podcast called “The Cost All Americans Pay for Racism.” He interviews Heather McGee who wrote The Sum of Us: What Racism Costs Everyone and How We Can Prosper Together. She started out by talking about a huge project in the US during the 1920s through the 1940s to create large, opulent resort-style public swimming pools in various cities. There were over 2000 of these public swimming spaces created. However, when black people showed up, expecting to be admitted to these public spaces, they were denied entrance, even though their tax dollars had helped to pay for them. Rather than admit black people, some cities sold the pools to private entities for a dollar so that the private entity wouldn’t have to admit black people (as a government-owned property would). Some of the cities literally just drained the swimming pools and shut them down, destroying them by filling them with concrete or dirt, instead of allowing black people to enjoy them. Instead of public swimming pools that were supposed to bring communities together, the new trend became privately run swimming clubs or personally owned swimming pools in people’s own yards. Of course, black people were usually barred from any path to enough wealth to have their own swimming pool, and a private club wasn’t obligated to allow them to join. Privatization quickly became the most effective way to enforce segregation. Some of these public pools were still being shut down as late as the 1960s, when it was becoming too unpopular and confrontational to continue openly to bar black people from swimming.
One of the family stories about me as a baby is that I would sit by the deep end of the pool in our Florida backyard and kick my legs in the water until I fell in. My mother would see me floating in the water by the seat of my rubber pants and would come out to rescue me. There’s a picture of me at this age reaching for a turtle by the pool and wearing just a plastic fireman’s helmet and a diaper. I won’t be recreating this photo as an adult for Instagram.
My dad, who served in the Navy in World War II, loved to swim. It was one of the times we as kids would get to “play” with our dad. He would throw us in the air, and we’d land in the water, swimming quickly back to him so he could do it again. We’d empty the change out of our pockets and stand by the deep end, then toss the coins into the water, watching where they settled. We would then dive for the coins, and gather them up on the edge of the pool to see who got the most. Sometimes as a family we would play Marco Polo, trying to answer “Polo” really quietly, our faces low to the water, so we wouldn’t get tagged by the flailing Marco whose eyes were closed. Being the smallest and youngest was both a difficulty and an asset. My siblings would sometimes use me as a human shield, but sometimes, being so small, I could wriggle away and swim below one of my sisters to get away from whoever was in the role of Marco.
We didn’t always have a pool, but I grew up swimming. If we stayed at a motel or hotel, we always made sure there was a pool. We often swam at the beach or in a lake when we vacationed. When we moved to Pennsylvania, we didn’t have our own pool, so we joined a nearby swim club. First we joined Ridgeview, which was just one large private pool on a farm surrounded by some dressing rooms. My mom would drop my sister and me off there for the afternoon in the summers, and we would swim for hours. A few years later, we switched to a membership at the much larger Willowood Swim Club. That was a bigger complex with three large pools and a “kiddie” pool, multiple life guards, and a shop selling hot food, sun screen, and my personal favorite–penny candy. The smell of Swedish Fish and Hawaiian Tropic dark tanning oil reminds me of Willowood Swim Club to this day. When I was in middle school, we got our own private pool again, and our days at the Swim Club were over.
When my husband and I traveled in Budapest two years ago, we discovered that one of the local treats is going to the large Roman-style spa. It contains many thermal pools of various temperatures, including an extremely popular outdoor thermal pool. There was a football match projected for the swimmers to watch, outdoor seating, and plenty of friendly Hungarians. It reminded me of my days at the swim club, a chance to relax with strangers which created a sense of community and fun, watching parents teaching their children to swim, older kids running off with their friends, and everyone gathering to eat as a family. I’ve never seen such a large, resort style pool complex in the US, not even in the hot springs parks.
After listening to the podcast, I researched and found that the swim club I used to enjoy was built in 1956, during the time when private swim clubs were becoming the trend rather than public pools, and that this was being done because people, primarily but not exclusively Dixiecrats, didn’t want government-built swimming pools if it meant they had to share them with black people. Privately owned clubs didn’t have to admit anyone they didn’t want to admit.
White people would rather destroy something they loved, a public good for their benefit, than share it with people they considered inferior, poor or dirty. Because black people were not given access to the benefits of the GI Bill that benefited so many whites returning from war, their second-class economic status was assured. This was further compounded by real estate practices like redlining that literally created “black” neighborhoods that whites would not willingly occupy due to lower property values; for black people, this sealed the multi-generational inability to climb out of poverty. Many whites didn’t realize that the system that had helped them had deliberately excluded and hurt black people. When confronted with the poverty and crime in black communities, rather than looking at the systems that created these issues, it was easier to blame black people for being lazy, unwilling to work to get ahead like white people (believed they) had done; black communities were seen as the product of broken and dysfunctional culture, not as communities deliberately deprived of the same opportunities white people took for granted.
Public pools are just a historical artifact that helps illustrate a common problem with privatization. Two other examples of public programs where conservatives push for privatization are education and health care; as with public pools, both have racist underpinnings. Being run by a private company, particularly for religious organizations, was a get-out-of-jail free card when it came to racism, and religously conservative groups understood this better than anyone.
One such school, Bob Jones University—a fundamentalist college in Greenville, South Carolina—was especially obdurate. The IRS had sent its first letter to Bob Jones University in November 1970 to ascertain whether or not it discriminated on the basis of race. The school responded defiantly: It did not admit African Americans.
Although Bob Jones Jr., the school’s founder, argued that racial segregation was mandated by the Bible, Falwell and Weyrich quickly sought to shift the grounds of the debate, framing their opposition in terms of religious freedom rather than in defense of racial segregation. For decades, evangelical leaders had boasted that because their educational institutions accepted no federal money (except for, of course, not having to pay taxes) the government could not tell them how to run their shops—whom to hire or not, whom to admit or reject. The Civil Rights Act, however, changed that calculus.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/religious-right-real-origins-107133
The roots of “religious freedom” are so completely tied to segregation and discrimination, that to me it’s an embarrassment for this term to appear on the front page of the Church’s website. It’s definitely something that needs to be re-examined. I realize that the Evangelicals love the term, doubtless why the Church is using it, but that should be a red flag, not encouragment. It’s not a placid term; it carries white privilege. Like performative patriotism and contemporaneous use of the American flag, it now implies white supremacy. The context of these symbols has changed and been highjacked by a white supremacist ideology.
President Nixon instituted civil rights legislation that would take away an organization’s tax exempt status if they discriminated on the basis of race, which forced some Evangelical colleges to put on a show of admitting black students, but the racist nature of the culture made it impossible to keep a plausible black student body that would convince the IRS they weren’t discriminating (which they absolutely were). Fears of miscegenation, something Mormon youth Sunday School lessons still cautioned against in 2010 (which not only surprised me but was devastating in its effects on my Sunday School students when they saw it in the manuals [1]), led to Bob Jones University admitting married black students only, so that there would be no “mixing of the races,” which they considered a religious imperative and their right under the guise of “religious freedom.” The university’s tax exempt status was rescinded in 1976, a year prior to Jimmy Carter’s presidency, although Evangelicals chose to blame liberals for their loss of status, knowing full well it didn’t happen under Carter. For political Evangelicals, the loss of tax exempt status for Bob Jones U was the final straw, galvanizing them to fight against what they saw as liberal encroachment on their so-called religious freedom. Protip: Nixon wasn’t liberal.
If you aren’t already hearing the echos of that horrifying story, looking back at the Mormon equivalent of this story about private religious education sounds very similar, but with some nuanced differences. In the late 1960s, BYU began to feel pressure from within their student body (which they didn’t so much care about) as well as students at other universities through the athletic programs of those schools. In 1970, the BSU (Black Student Union) at UW (University of Washington) demanded that their school refuse to compete in any sporting events against BYU, and also demanded that their university issue a statement decrying the Mormon Church’s racist doctrine and white supremacy. This was eight years before the priesthood ban was lifted, and the BSU members, who were not LDS, understood the ramifications of then-Mormon doctrine very clearly. Their protest was in the wake of a highly publicized incident when the University of Wyoming’s team protested BYU in 1969.
BYU’s record of racism and discrimination did not become national news until the fall of 1969 when 14 black football players at Wyoming were suspended from the football team for planning to protest against BYU. The University of Wyoming’s successful football team had 14 black players recruited from around the nation. Their coach, Lloyd Eaton, was known as a disciplinarian and had a strict policy against his students protesting. On October 15, 1969, three days before a game with BYU, the Black Student Alliance at the University of Wyoming delivered a letter to the university’s administration. The letter discussed the racial policies of the LDS Church and BYU and suggested that students and players protest in the upcoming game. The 14 blacks on the team met and, while unsure of the tactics they would use, decided to protest the LDS Church’s doctrine.4
The specific issue that the athletes were protesting was a Mormon Church policy that prohibited blacks from joining the priesthood. In the Mormon Church the priesthood was not a professional order and all males entered the priesthood at age 12. Without being allowed into the priesthood blacks, could not marry in the temple, hold important leadership positions in the church, or enter the highest level of heaven. In short, the Mormon doctrine viewed blacks as spiritually inferior.5 After tentatively deciding to protest, the Wyoming football players broached the matter with their coach. Eaton immediately railed the blacks for even considering a protest, revoked their scholarships and dismissed them from the team. Since Wyoming was a nationally ranked team, film crews from the three networks descended upon Laramie to cover the administrative, faculty, and student meetings that followed the dismissals.6
https://depts.washington.edu/civilr/BSU_BYU.htm
In both cases, Evangelical leaders and Mormon leaders (and University decision makers) pled religious freedom. Black Student Unions disagreed, pointing out that all white organizations, religious or not, hid behind their institutions to bar blacks from equal participation. [2] In other words, “religious freedom” was often just a screen to hide institutions from accountability on religious grounds that acted as a panacea for any type of discrimination the institution wanted to do.
Was I, as a child, complicit in upholding racism by being in a family with a membership in a swim club or by owning a personal swimming pool? I was definitely benefiting from it, even if I didn’t realize its roots. Was I complicit in upholding racism because I got my degree at BYU, well after the priesthood ban was lifted and without being aware of the racist practices of the 1940s through the 1970s?
These are the wrong questions. My intentions are mostly irrelevant when it comes to anti-racism. We were all born into a racist world, one built with systematic racism. Organizations have inertia when it comes to progress, and privatization gives cover for even slower progress (or worse–regression). I’m glad to see that the Church has now included language in the handbook that condemns racism, but the problem is that it only addresses the racism of individuals, not the racist roots of institutions like BYU, the Church, educational systems, healthcare, and creating equal opportunity for people, regardless of color. Calls for individuals to “stop being racist” will do almost nothing to eliminate racist outcomes or the experiences of people of color.
Sure, if I go around like Archie Bunker (or Donald Trump, his modern-day equivalent), I’m being sinful on a personal level by treating a group of people as inferior, but, on the other hand, forcing people to discuss and deal with people who are extreme can open dialogue. Whether you or I are personally racist or not doesn’t change the fact that we live in a society more willing to throw away the public good rather than share it with people from other races and different socio-economic levels. It also matters that racists generally don’t think they are racist. Here’s an illustration from Archie Bunker’s character in All in the Family.
“I ain’t no bigot. I’m the first guy to say, ‘It ain’t your fault that youse are colored.'”
— Archie Bunker, All in the Family, Season 2: Edith Writes a Song
Bigotry is only invisible to the bigot.
Anti-socialism, like religious freedom, is ultimately a screen that hides bigotry and elitism. When Martin Luther King was assassinated, Church leaders were mostly silent, not wanting to laud the man whose efforts they had opposed so unabashedly. Rather than claiming to be against civil rights for black people, the objection was voiced that King was a communist, someone trying to get something for nothing at the expense of those (white people) who had worked hard to get it. [3] With the benefit of hindsight, this argument is clearly one we’re hearing resurfacing with vigor among the GOP today: 1) poor people are lazy and handouts are bad, 2) there’s no systemic racism, 3) government solutions for all are bad as they hurt the deserving whites, 4) private organizations are better run, 5) religious organizations should be exempt from anti-discrimination rules, 6) corporations are people, my friend. Lather, rinse, repeat. It’s telling that although communism as a system of government fell (China’s form of communism is very capitalist, and nothing like the Cold War threat we quaked about Reagan’s America), a large group of Americans can’t shut up about their fear that any attempt at governing is going to lead us straight into Communism.
That’s a fear with racist roots.
- Did you have a swimming pool growing up or belong to a swim club? Were you aware of the racist roots of private pools and swim clubs in the US?
- Do you find the term “religious freedom” as used by conservative churches troubling? Why or why not?
- Do you see anti-socialism as a screen for racism? Why or why not?
Discuss.
[1] In case the Church is wondering why we are losing so many young people, the calls are coming from inside the house.
[2] It’s no coincidence that the current cries for “religious freedom” continue to be the freedom to discriminate against classes of people, currently LGBTQ people and women.
[3] The best analogy I’ve heard to explain white privilege is that it’s like playing a video game, but white people get to play it on Level 1 while people of color (and women, often) have to play it at a higher difficulty level to win. White people feel they “earned” their wins, but are often unaware that they were playing an easier game all along. Equality is making sure we are all playing on roughly the same difficulty level.
Wheat & Tares 
I issue my strongest possible condemnation to racism of any and every kind. It and the other relics of barbarism must be stamped out.
I’m half way through Isabel Wilkerson’s Caste and she writes at length about public pools as definitive evidence of a racist social structure. I had no idea, growing up in northern Utah where there just weren’t many African Americans. People in some parts of the country threw broken glass and nails in their own public pools so black people could not use them. They argued with straight faces that black people could not be allowed in because there wasn’t enough time to then drain and clean the pool for white people the following day. These and similar examples litter every page of the book. It’s a tough pill to swallow.
Yes, the term “religious freedom” is troubling, but it’s now more troubling for how it tries to corral LGBTQ individuals than anything else. Much was made of the church’s endorsement of the Fairness for All initiative in Utah, which made it illegal to discriminate against LGBTQ people in employment and housing but gave the church that right under the guise of religious freedom. Christ Stewart is now trying to introduce similar legislation on a national level as an alternative to the more progressive (liberal?) Equality Act. Fairness for All is being framed as protecting the rights of LGBTQ individuals and churches at the same time. In reality, it’s an effort to keep from being sued or losing tax exempt status when you won’t let gay people get married in the temple.
The word ‘socialism’ is thrown around as a boogeyman whenever it suits the user as way to stir up emotions. It literally has almost no meaning otherwise. A more thoughtful society would have a conversation about what socialism actually is, who it benefits, where it might work better than the market, and whether or not we want it. We’re largely not even aware of the socialist programs we already have (“keep your government hands off my Medicare”). Anti-socialism is a screen for racism, yes, when the goal is to keep black people out of whatever. It’s also a screen for other forms of discrimination and profiteering–it’s flexible like that. Socialism is the Swiss army knife of modern political discourse.
Great post. I grew up in the middle class section of a mostly upper class town on the southeast coast of Florida, so although I was unaware of the racist roots of private pools and swim clubs specifically, I was very well aware of the many ways that people used (and still use) exclusionary tactics to keep out all sorts of “undesirables” (which was mainly about race, but also about class) and then spent a great deal of time explaining why said exclusionary tactics weren’t really meant to be exclusionary.
jaredsbrother may have the quote of the year: “it’s an effort to keep from being sued or losing tax exempt status when you won’t let gay people get married in the temple.” Bingo. Any seemingly conciliatory moves the church makes when it comes to compromising on issues that affect groups of people the church traditionally considers unworthy or inferior are never made without a corresponding expectation of reciprocation. So the church will budge a little on LGBTQ rights in order to “look good” and maintain its (financial) status quo in other areas. Women are given more “leadership” roles, but are still, from a doctrinal and practical standpoint, second class citizens. And the list goes on. And yes, of course “religious freedom” is troubling, mainly because it means the freedom to discriminate under the cover of maintaining both moral superiority and tax-exempt status. It’s an entirely disingenuous argument.
Same with “socialism”. Again, jardesborther hits the nail on the head: most Americans have no idea what socialism means, just like they have no idea that there’s really no such thing as “Cultural Marxism”. It’s all scare tactics in order to enable the conservative oligarchy to maintain its hold on its gullible followers (note: the liberal oligarchy has its gullible followers, too. I’m not suggesting that gullibility is the exclusive province of the Right.). And because most Americans (of all political leanings) don’t spend enough time really trying to understand the nuances of something before either railing against it or championing it, both major parties spend most of their time constructing and maintaining their ideologies and their followings through fear rather than anything else. And since many Americans, particularly conservative political leaders, fear any upsetting of their status quo, yes, anti-socialism equates to racism; it also equates to maintaining the economic (class structure) status quo that benefits the few and burdens the many.
Yes, echoing Brother Sky, this is a great post, hawkgrrrl. I appreciate the way your mind connects things with such facility.
As a society we have to negotiate a very complicated trade-off: religious freedom, and equality. On one side are those that value religious freedom above all else. Nothing is more important, even if that means treating people differently. They might say, “we have the right to treat people differently”. On the other side are those who value equality above all else. They might say, :”you have no right to discriminate in the name of religion”. For Mormons, this can be complicated. We value our religious freedom perhaps more than any other right. Yet we profess to follow Christ and treat everyone as Christians should.
Here’s how I have resolved it: I don’t see Christ discriminating against anyone in the scriptures (maybe I missed something). He treats sinners and the saints the same way. He says nothing disparaging about race or ethnicity and he has strong relationships with women (limited but strong). I contrast that with the COJCOLDS and its history with women (polygamy), blacks (priesthood / temple ban), and homosexuals (hard to even sum up). And here’s the conclusion I’ve come to: I can follow Christ and treat everyone equally. But if I follow the COJCOLDS I have to be willing to discriminate against all kinds of folks depending on the era I lived in. I was born in 1965 so I missed out on the polygamy-era and certainly not the pre-1978 mentality. And together with my progressive kids we’ve tried to sort out the Church’s ever-evolving stand on homosexuality.
See, if you follow Christ, you don’t ever feel compelled to kick the black or gay kids out of the pool. It’s only when the Church is involved that you might have felt justified in doing so. As for girls: if they have a bikini on they are immodest and slutty and have no business looking that way at a public pool.
My family had a membership to a private swim club when I was growing up (late 80s-early 90s). It never occurred to me at the time that there may have been racist underpinnings in the club’s establishment, but in hindsight I don’t doubt it. But in our historically-white California suburbs of consisting of 1950s post-WWII tract homes, such clubs dotted our neighborhoods and vastly outnumbered the public pools. Each club had a youth swim team and they competed against each other all summer long in a local club circuit. Many families in my ward were also members of that pool, and it often served as the setting for many ward social gatherings, both official and impromptu. Though there was a fair amount of ethnic diversity in the neighborhood by that time (evidenced by the diversity of my school classmates) it was unlikely to find a person of color swimming at our private pool. We never went to public pools because my mom said they were “too filthy from the ghetto kids who swim in them”.
The racial swimming disparity really became apparent to me when I joined the military in the early 2000s. The swim qualification portion of boot camp was physically demanding, but ultimately no trouble for me and the other strong swimmers. Most recruits struggled a little, but did well enough to pass on the first try. There were, however, a handful of weak swimmers who were terrified of the water, and in their panicked state looked like they were about to drown in a section of the pool that was no more than chest deep. These recruits required lots of extra remedial training just to get a minimum passing score. I was surprised to see that this group consisted almost entirely of Black recruits. Later on, a Black member of my unit told me about his inner-city upbringing, that he had never had an opportunity to swim in a pool before, and being thrown into a pool in the high-pressure environment of military training was just overwhelming to him. Before, I had always thought the idea that “Black people can’t swim” was just a negative stereotype, but it dawned on me that there was a kernel of racist truth behind it. Even basketball legend Michael Jordan is said to be deathly afraid of immersion in water and refuses to take baths (only showers).
I see the “religious freedom” argument as one similar to that of “drained-pool politics” (the idea introduced by Heather McGee in the aforementioned book)–that a certain brand of Religious Right conservatism desires to either carve out exceptions that allow them to continue to discriminate, or close down the resource completely so no one can use it, almost like a “scorched earth” policy. Such an approach seems totally contrary to the teachings of Christ, which is why it makes my heart hurt every time the Church beats the drum of “religious freedom”. It seems to be a hobby horse of Oaks, so I wonder if the enthusiasm will fade after he passes. I don’t think the younger generations are buying it.
In the context of this discussion the phrase “blood and sins of this generation” may have some bearing. This term seems to refer to our individual contribution to the collective blood and sins enacted in our name. For example, as individuals, we vote for leaders we hope will act in the civil equivalent of righteous ways only to learn (sometimes) that they have acted on our behalf in sinful ways that cost the blood of the innocent. We may not have individually exacted this blood, but we enabled its taking.
Might it be so with racism and any other -ism to which I may be personally blind in myself or of which I may even be guiltless within my personal realm? The notion of “blood and sins of this generation” implies that simply extinguishing my liability in the personal sphere doesn’t absolve me of bearing witness to and trying to change those societal ills in society. Granted, this is a tall order and demands we engage collectively. The students of my alma mater, Georgetown University, collectively overcame the inertia of the university administration and the Jesuits to enact a means to support the education of descendants of enslaved people sold to fund the university’s operation in the 1830s. (See https://religionnews.com/2021/03/16/jesuits-pledge-100-million-for-descendants-of-people-their-order-enslaved/.)
Perhaps BYU could lead out against racism by adopting an admissions policy favoring a student body that looks more like the church at large. They could admit and finance a much larger international student population. Such a move wouldn’t eliminate racism overnight, but it would signal forcefully our commitment “to provide for my saints, that the poor shall be exalted, in that the rich are made low.” (D&C 104:16) Heather McGee states that we are all made poorer when groups in society are not allowed to develop intergenerational wealth. Given reports in recent years, money can’t surely be the thing holding us back.
Politics. Racism. Religious freedom/bigotry. Flimsy doctrinal justifications. It’s all just mixing together into one big stinking stew. It’s a very bad look for the Church. I thought inspired leaders were supposed to steer the Church away from this sort of mess, not steer us into it.
Thanks, Angela. This is great. When conservatives bring up the old “socialist” nonsense, I just ask them which part of Germany’s economy, exactly, they are afraid of. We’re not talking about Cuba or Venezuela here. The Democrats want to give us not quite as much “socialism” as Germany enjoys. And I say “enjoys” intentionally. Their health-care system, for instance, gives German citizens much more freedom and choice than even I have with my excellent employer-provided health insurance. Compared to Americans with no insurance, well, there’s simply no comparison.
Another Church-related example of drained-pool politics: when LDS Family Services abruptly closed down their adoption arm a few years back. They never publicly said why, but the timing was suspicious enough that it seems likely LGBTQ issues (such as the prospect of being forced to facilitate adoptions for same-sex couples, and potential legal fallout thereof) factored into the decision. So now no one gets to use that resource. There are probably other such examples.
I almost added this familiar quote from Ezra Taft Benson that any child of the 80s will remember: “The world would take people out of the slums. Christ would take the slums out of people, and then they would take themselves out of the slums.” It’s this same exact argument, that the poor are “undeserving” because of something wrong inside of them, not due to factors outside their control like systemic racism, redlining, no GI bill, no civil rights, empty promises by a lying government for centuries, etc., etc. The quote by Benson implies that accepting (white Jesus) will elevate the poor (and BIPOC) so they can rise above their poor choices, and become wealthier.
Growing up I might have even believed this, particularly because sure, there are some poor people who seem to sabotage themselves with terrible choices. But I’ve read a lot more and met a lot more people since those days, and I would like to suggest that if we take people out of the slums (and quit barring them from opportunities and education), that will elevate them, that will help them realize their potential. Things like the armed forces can help, along with not forcing their parents into poverty or jail for minor offenses, and those are the things that take the “slums out of people.” It’s hard not to have your external state impact your internal state.
The racist/class issue with fear of social programs is that poor whites are terrified of the perceived loss of status if they are getting the same benefits as BIPOC poor. This status-mindset is the racist problem. Rather than have nice things as a society, many poor whites want the status of being seen as more successful than the poor (the BIPOC poor that is).
Angela: You raise some important questions about religious freedom, civil rights, and segregation. This is material I’ve been living with the past few years as I’ve researched this topic for my forthcoming book on Blacks and Mormons. Like Bob Jones U, BYU administrators feared that the federal government was coming for them and they too touted “religious freedom” to justify their discriminatory policies. Following the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the LBJ administration began to crack down on religious institutions that discriminated against blacks. But, unlike Bob Jones, BYU administrators didn’t include discriminatory policies (e.g., interracial marriage prohibitions) in their handbook. Theirs was more subtle. Instead, BYU sent prospective black students a letter discouraging them from coming to Provo, which, of course, they didn’t share with federal authorities when they investigated BYU from 1968-70. But despite Wilkinson’s clever maneuver, he didn’t fool federal investigators: they knew BYU didn’t want blacks at the school and they were angry that Wilkinson was jerking them around. In response, the Feds sent Wilkinson and VP Thomas an unusually blunt letter threatening that, if BYU wouldn’t comply with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the government would cut off all federal pell grants to BYU students, strip faculty of research grants, and use whatever authority they had to take away BYU’s accreditation. In other words, this wasn’t a fight that Wilkinson and the Board of Trustees would win, even as they tried to hide behind the First Amendment to justify their policies. Recognizing the precarious position BYU was in, Wilkinson and the Board reluctantly granted BYU officials permission to recruit black students in the fall of 1969–all the while informing them that they couldn’t date white girls if they enrolled at the church-0wned school. The feds also pressured BYU to hire its first black faculty member in 1970. Thus, when the Nixon administration sent Bob Jones a letter in 1970 threatening to revoke their tax exemption status because of the school’s racist policies, Wilkinson and the Board breathed a collective sigh of relief because by that time BYU had already resolved its issues of discrimination with the federal government. These same issues, of course, arose again in the early 1970s when federal authorities cracked down on BYU for refusing to recruit women into the faculty ranks. How did BYU president Oaks respond? The same way that Wilkinson responded with the race issue. They both claimed RELIGIOUS FREEDOM.
Is anti-socialism a screen for racism? I don’t know. I think nowadays it is one thing to be opposed to socialism and another to be anti-socialist. The former position is a disagreement with implementing models of governance in the US (or another country) that are akin to other socialist experiments throughout time and space. The latter is a strawman attack that creates a boogeyman from fragments of positions taken by leftist figures (most of whom are fringe and don’t have widespread acceptance) and then tying the moderate left (the predominant group of people in the US) to that in order to advance Trumpist and alt-right positions. I’m opposed to socialism. I think most socialist experiments proved to be failures. The “socialist” countries that continue to exist appear to be nothing more than facades maintained by actually capitalist countries (i.e., China and Vietnam). Scandinavia and Germany aren’t socialist countries even if some of them (Sweden) did experiment with socialism in the past. Plus, the US has long had some elements of socialism in it (entitlements), which have proven to be very successful and very popular.
I used to follow the Intellectual Dark Web (IDW). I was led to it by Sam Harris, whose work I was drawn to about a decade ago when I was in search of spiritual alternatives to organized religion. I liked Sam’s ideas in Moral Landscape wherein he talks of being able to build a morality through reason and science, and notes how morality isn’t a strictly relative thing. I was also drawn to his ideas about determinism and how much of our beliefs and thoughts are caused and not chosen (although I have since rejected hard determinism). I would frequently listen to his talks and lectures and one issue he kept harping on was political correctness. Harris was antagonistic to political correctness largely because he would be frequently censured (not censored, but censured) for speaking bluntly about Islam. Back then, I thought in some ways that he was simply noting some harsh realities about Islam and the Islamic world that many people simply didn’t want to acknowledge but needed to. What I observed over time, however, was a new crowd of people drawn to Harris largely because of his thoughts on political correctness and Harris’s growing association with a new crop of thinkers, pundits, and neo-journalists who were mostly interested in attacking political correctness. By 2016 as Trump was on the campaign trail, Harris, maybe unwittingly, had helped usher in a new anti-political correctness movement that didn’t just consist of the religious folks angry at being called homophobes but throngs of non-religious people angry at being called racists and ethnocentrists. It was almost as if people had left traditional religion to find a replacement for it in the new anti-political correctness/anti-cancel culture religion, for which the presidency of Trump provided endless fuel. I witnessed many followers and associates of Harris, whom I had at first thought to be sensible people, become consumed with the image of a new political correctness boogeyman that they seemed to spend every waking hour attacking. By the Trump presidency, the IDW, once a well-intentioned experiment aimed at attacking the excesses of the right and the left, had turned into of a shell of its self becoming infested with racists, alt-righters, and conspiracy theorists. Much like “anti-socialism” is a label to be wary of, such is “anti-political correctness.” For there are quite a few folks out there who join anti-political correctness and anti-cancel culture fervor as an excuse to be racist. It is one thing to frown on excessive acts of cancel culture and political correctness, but a very different thing to be “anti-PC.”
I was unaware that the GI Bill did not extend to blacks. (Makes sense, but I never thought of it.)
I’ve thought a lot about reparations. In practice reparations for descendants of slaves would be tricky to administer. With so much time passed, how do you determine who qualifies? But Congress could easily pass a law extending reparations to the families of black servicemen from WWII, fully funding college for their great grandkids or aiding their home purchases. It would have limited practical impact, but the symbolic impact would be monumental.
Thankyou hawkgirl, I had been trying to understand why the church would object to the equality act, claiming their religious freedom was in peril? How would it restrict the church?
In Australia freedom of religion, is understood to mean the freedom to practice your religion. A church is not required to perform gay marriage.
I have wondered about the concept of big government in American politics, but had not realised it had a racial component. When we were in Florida, we had to ask at a tourist information office, where there was a public beach. It was 20k away and about 1 k long. In Australia we have the best beaches in the world, and if they are near civilization there will be, showers, foot washing, toilets, and free BBQs and parking provided by the local council, behind the beach.
I now understand the private beaches, are like the private pools in your blog.
We do have racism in Aus, and the government, of either party, has a closing the gap stratergy, to overcome the disadvantage our first nations people have.
So much of American life is divided by political/moral understanding. If you live there you may not realise the stress this creates. Can you imagine living where abortion is not political, universal healthcare, equality for women, gay marriage, are all agreed, except for some people from American religions. Peace.
MTodd: This is an interesting overview of how black vets were denied practical benefit from the GI bill (because of redlining, they could not use GI Bill benefits to secure housing built by the government and VA deliberately to exclude them): https://www.npr.org/transcripts/526655831
Additionally, there were other loopholes exploited to exclude blacks: 1) a far higher percentage of black service members were marked as “dishonorable discharge” by racist administrators, knowing this would rob them of the GI Bill, 2) white universities (those with the best hiring records) denied blacks admittance to universities, so those veterans who could use the GI bill to pay for education had to do so at black universities, and many did so, but still were forced to rent rather than own housing due to community covenants prohibiting black people from buying homes in “good” (meaning white) neighborhoods.
Religious freedom is an important principle, a crucially important principle, so I hope we don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Yes, let’s try not to use religious freedom as a smokescreen for something else, but let’s not try to abolish religious freedom.
It is a rare individual, from all races and backgrounds, that isn’t racist to some degree. I think the root of my racism originated in California during the sixties.
Since then, I have tried to repent of my racism. I served a mission in Asia. Never felt racism there.
My spouse has a co-worker who bought a home in central coastal CA 5 yrs ago. The home dates back to the early 1940’s. The house was built for military use. The original deed on the house has a clause that non-Caucasians cannot live in the house unless they are a servant.
ji: Actual religious freedom is ensconced in the constitution and frankly not at risk. Trying to expand it to give religions the freedom to refuse service to gay couples in secular businesses or to be exempt from the rules because an evangelical hairdresser pins a few scriptures to the walls, or to allow a religious business owner to refuse to cover birth control in insurance plans–THESE are not, IMO, religious freedom. Nor is it “religious freedom” when BYU asks discriminatory questions of women candidates to justify why they are seeking employment and asking if their husbands are disabled. Religions seem to be universally willing to push the boundaries of discrimination under the cover of religious freedom if permitted.
On religious freedom, I remember the uproar about a decade ago coming from the supposed champions of religious freedom (conservatives) over the construction of a mosque near Ground Zero. Let’s bear in mind that cries of religious freedom mostly appear to mean license for Evangelical Christian norms to prevail and dominate. Those crying religious freedom the loudest mostly don’t seem concerned about protecting the freedoms of religions they don’t like, such as Islam, or acknowledging the freedoms of religion when it comes to the freedom of a religion to be liberal and do liberal things. I didn’t hear conservative Evangelical Christians crying loudly pre-Obergefell v. Hodges about the lack of the religious freedom of liberal Christian churches to marry same-sex couples.
So yes, religious freedom is important. But the most vocal calls for religious freedom are farcical. Aren’t about real freedom at all but instead the right to discriminate.
Preach! Great post. Yes, I hate the term “religious freedom.” I didn’t always – in fact I went to law school thinking I wanted to go into that field – until I realized it was about (1) protecting a religious institution’s right to discriminate and (2) protecting religious institutions against liability for sexual abuse. Hard pass.
I had not made the explicit connection between MLK Jr = Communism and Anti-Racism = socialism. Fascinating.
This all has me thinking about some of the rhetoric coming from Senator Mike Lee (yuck, yuck, yuck, and double yuck). He’s terrified of democracy, which is quite telling.
@Angela, I was so disgusted when that ETB quote re: taking the slums out of people was resurrected by Bednar during a recent General Conference. It’s just plain ignorant and dead wrong considering what we know about systemic, generational poverty. (This reminds me of a discussion on the “Competence” post about our aversion to “experts”, especially in the social sciences.)
@Matt Harris, I am hoping there’s a possibility of similar pressure bearing on BYU related to acceptance of gay marriage. If God can’t get through to our leaders, maybe the NCAA or IRS can.
@Elisa & @Angela — The ETB quote excuses those who, presumably, live without inner slums from bearing witness to the misery and systemic inequity of the systems in which we participate. In providing us with a comforting, simplistic explanation of a complex phenomenon, the quote does comparable damage to the 1965 Moynihan Report which called African-American families a “tangle of pathology.”
Swimming is an interesting problem. Provo City used to (maybe they still does) close its municipal swimming pool on Sundays. A swimming day popular with Hispanics. Yet Provo kept it’s golf course open on Sunday, an activity popular with Anglos. Probably not overt racism, but certainly problematic. (Anglos have more political clout.)
On my mission in the 1960’s, we were prohibited from swimming. So were by sons in the 1980’s. As was my grandson in 2019/20. The latter was first assigned to Chuuk (Micronesia), not swimming was a bit of a burden. I’m not sure why the prohibition. I assume it is for safety reasons. But among missionaries, some had a scriptural reference to the “devil living in the water.” Not a discrimination issue, but a weird quirk.
Coming from someone who doesn’t live in America but whose bloggernacle comments are on nothing else but American politics, surely you see the irony here.
Several years ago there was a proposal for our suburban Philly group of YMCAs (mostly around Valley Forge) to merge with the Philly YMCAs. Someone opposed to the merger put flyers on cars at one of the suburban Ys claiming, among other things, if the merger were approved our suburban pools would be overrun with Philly kids (code word). The suburban Y management got in high dudgeon over the flyers and sent an email to all of us members condemning the flyer, encouraging us to vote for the merger and, in the last paragraph, noting the outdoor suburban pools were not part of the merger anyway! The merger was approved and, so it seems, both sides got their way.
I was surprised to see comments dated yesterday and today from someone using the name “wondering.” Surprised only because I’d been using the name “Wondering” on this site quite a lot and therefore wondered if I’d actually posted some preliminary efforts I decided not to post. I didn’t — “wondering” [of yesterday and today in this comment chain’ is not “Wondering.”
More to the point, I’ve been learning thinks from Angela’s post and from some comments.
Thanks.
Angela, unfortunately your post demonstrates a certain naiveite because you only look at one side of the coin. Yes, there are likely those who use “religious freedom” to justify bad actions. But there are also those who use religious freedom to protect from onerous state infringements. There is an extensive history of First Amendment jurisprudence developed regarding governmental actors expressly attacking believers for their beliefs — they use laws of general applicability but their purpose is clear.
This, too, has been used for prejudicial purpose. Unemployment has been denied for those who refuse to work on Saturday (to attack Seventh Day Adventists), criminalization of drug use has been used to attack Native American practitioners, animal cruelty laws have been used to attack Jew or Muslins for kosher or halal (respectively). For every bad actor you can name using religion as a shield (and it does happen) I can point to two governmental actors using the state as a cudgel.
As the state has become more secular and hostile to religion, the state actors have become far more overt in their efforts against religion — if you are unaware of such cases (and your post seemingly indicates that you are) I would encourage you to look at both sides of an argument as a point of basic fairness before coming to the conclusion that those advocating religious freedom are merely surreptitiously bigoted. The state actors are often so egregious (and so emboldened) that it is not uncommon for a decision made (and upheld at the appellate level) only to be reversed in unanimous opinion by even the liberals on the US Supreme Court. These egregious anti-religious overreaches (many of which, unfortunately, share an underlying rationale consistent with your post) have been corrected by the Supreme Court but not before years of litigation (and, in at least one case, bankruptcy). The Supreme Court has noted the aggressive hostility towards religion that underlies many of these facially-neutral laws.
I’d encourage you to become aware of the concerns that those (including the Church) have regarding religious liberty before projecting bad motivations on them.
OK Jonathon, how would the church be disadvantaged by the freedom act, to give gays the same rights as everyone else has?
Jonathan: If you really want to play that game, here goes. This is a link to the so-called “religious freedom” cases on the Church’s website. (FYI-they do not involve the Mormon Church): https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/other-examples-of-attacks-on-religious-conscience-and-free-exercise
There are 8 cases cited. Of the 8, all but ONE of the cases pertain to the “religious freedom” to discriminate against gay people, and using pretty obvious language to curry sympathy from people who already espouse anti-LGBT beliefs:
– Honor code case at Gordon College in Massachussetts challenging its rights to prohibit pre-marital sex and homosexual practice. The ACLU brought the case on behalf of a member of faculty who was fired for publicly criticizing the policy.
– Chief of Atlanta’s Fire Dept was fired for writing an anti-LGBT (and anti-premarital sex) book that he gave to subordinates. He also used his position at Fire Chief to bolster his credentials in the book, which is the grounds for his termination (as well as subjecting his subordinates to his views which he foisted on them in book form). His termination was ruled to be justified on the grounds of policy, but he is seeking civil damages. The Church’s write-up uses the phrases “sincerely held religious beliefs” and attempts to normalize his behavior by saying “biblically-orthodox understanding of human sexuality.” Why in the heck is anyone’s understanding of human sexuality the topic of conversation at work, particularly from boss to employee?? Why would it be desirable for a boss to be allowed to harangue his employees about their sex lives???
– A fertility doctor refused to provide services to a gay couple. This was not in a religious clinic. This is just an individual deciding whom to service or not. This is the exact sort of overreach I’m talking about.
– The one case not related to gay rights is a small Evangelical church in NYC that wanted to use a public school after hours for worship services which had been prohibited in NYC to that point. After the case, which the city won, Mayor DiBlasio decided to change the statute to allow Churches access to public schools after hours.
– A counseling student refused to accept a gay patient and was expelled from her program. (As she should be! It’s completely unprofessional!)
– A Baptist adoption agency fired an employee for being openly gay (according to the Church’s newsroom, it was due to her “admitted homosexual lifestyle.”)
– A Jewish university in NYC was sued for barring a lesbian couple from its married housing which was a violation of the city housing discrimination laws.
Ditto to Angela’s comment. Yes, there are legitimate religious freedom issues – Trump’s Muslim immigration ban comes to mind as a recent infringement. But those are not the issues the Church is focused on. Most of its religious freedom activity is about gay marriage.
I would examples of religious freedom work that the Church is doing outside of anti-LGBTQ work. Please send along the amicus briefs and resources.
Jaredsbrother, I read Wilkerson’s “Caste” last year. It was sobering to read the American “Christian” justifications for racism, which the CoJCoLDS parroted almost verbatim at one point or another. It was especially sobering when I learned that the Nazis studied southern Evangelical Jim Crow racism, the language and reasoning of which our Church adopted, and decided that it went too far in some instances (the “one drop of blood” doctrine was one case, if I remember the book correctly). I didn’t learn that in AP US History. Not a good look when the Nazis think your racial reasoning is too extreme!
Angela, your response does not fairly present any of the cases cited. None. It is as if you pulled information from a source hostile to the Church, adopted it unquestioningly, and then used it to criticize the Church. Let’s look at each:
“– Honor code case at Gordon College in Massachussetts challenging its rights to prohibit pre-marital sex and homosexual practice. The ACLU brought the case on behalf of a member of faculty who was fired for publicly criticizing the policy.”
This is not correct. The Gordon College employment case was decided in favor of the employee, but that is not what the Church is referencing. The Church is quite clear on its concern — “Gordon College, an evangelical campus in Massachusetts, has been called before the New England Association of Schools and Colleges (NEASC), the local accrediting body, to justify its “life and conduct statement””
“– Chief of Atlanta’s Fire Dept was fired for writing an anti-LGBT (and anti-premarital sex) book that he gave to subordinates. He also used his position at Fire Chief to bolster his credentials in the book, which is the grounds for his termination (as well as subjecting his subordinates to his views which he foisted on them in book form). His termination was ruled to be justified on the grounds of policy, but he is seeking civil damages. The Church’s write-up uses the phrases “sincerely held religious beliefs” and attempts to normalize his behavior by saying “biblically-orthodox understanding of human sexuality.” Why in the heck is anyone’s understanding of human sexuality the topic of conversation at work, particularly from boss to employee?? Why would it be desirable for a boss to be allowed to harangue his employees about their sex lives???”
As to why anyone’s understanding of human sexuality being the topic at work, go to a diversity seminar where it is inescapable — your issue isn’t that it is a topic but that you don’t like the viewpoint being presented. You want only one side presented and if the other side is presented you cry foul (though, admittedly, this guy was a poor messenger you would be equally unhappy with a refined presentation if it differed from the current orthodoxy). Leaving aside the fairness, that is not the behavior of someone confident in their arguments. Generally speaking the side hiding from robust debate is the side that knows good and well they are wrong.
As for the appropriateness of the firing, I will note that the city of Atlanta paid out $1.2M in settlement of the lawsuit — recognizing the termination was wrongful. That would seem relevant — that the city recognized that what they did was illegal. Why would they do that if the case was a clear-cut as you want to make it?
“– A fertility doctor refused to provide services to a gay couple. This was not in a religious clinic. This is just an individual deciding whom to service or not. This is the exact sort of overreach I’m talking about.”
And this is exactly what proponents of religious freedom are talking about. Doctors being ordered to perform abortions. Pharmacists being required to supply Plan B. Dissent is not tolerated — the secular god is a jealous god and all must be made to bend the knee. The law used to be relatively clear — religious beliefs are to be accommodated unless other providers cannot be found. So if there is only one fertility doctor available then that doctor must do the work. But when there are multiple options available you don’t get to demand that a particular doctor swallow his convictions. That is the balancing of interests that has existed for a long time that respected religious beliefs and yet precluded discrimination. It is not the religious who have upset that apple cart — it is those who are now demanding that someone “bake the cake.” Respect and plurality dictate that regardless of whether you or I would bake the cake that the believer not be obligated to bake the cake unless there is no other baker available. After all, is the purpose to get the person a cake or is the purpose to force compliance with the secular ideology? If it isn’t enough that services are available — then the only purpose is to ensure that everyone must bend the knee to the secular god. You see, it isn’t about the cake at all — it is about crushing dissent from the current secular orthodoxy.
That is not respect and plurality — that is violative of religious freedom. So you can get the service from others but you demand that someone violate their conscience in order to serve you? Petty, vindictive oppression — and not the behavior of an oppressed minority but rather the behavior of an ascendant overgroup. When you talk about this as if it is overreach, what you are essentially saying is that regardless of what someone believes they may not act on that belief if it doesn’t agree with you. The person can get the same services elsewhere? Doesn’t matter — bend the knee.
And, you know what, I am going to stop there. I was planning to go through the rest of the cases but (a) this is quickly deviating from the original purpose of my response (I am insufficiently dispassionate — mea culpa); and (b) if this doesn’t get the point across, nothing will. Though I expect nothing will — and everyone will have to sometime make a choice between their love of the current secular orthodoxy or God. Many seem to want to avoid that choice and hope/expect/demand change in their religion to become consistent with their political religion. Not sure that is a great long-term strategy…
Jonathon,
If you change the object in each example from discriminating against gay people to discriminating against coloured people do you still refuse to bend the knee?
Jonathan, in typical lawyer fashion, you miss the forest for the trees. Get hung up on minor cases in order to lend credence to the fraught notion that there is some large-scale threat to religious freedom by some secular big-state boogeyman (please). There is currently more religious freedom in the US than there has ever been. The US in its current state is one of the most religiously free countries to have ever existed. And the main threats to religious freedom really are coming from white evangelical Christians who hate Muslims and LGBTQ+s, cannot tolerate non-Christian religions (especially Islam), and cannot tolerate the right of individuals to have freedom from religion. But even there I would say that Muslims still do enjoy a good amount of religious freedom and atheists and nones enjoy a good amount of freedom from religion. The religious freedom “crisis” is mostly a crying of wolf.
Jonathan wrote, “The law used to be relatively clear — religious beliefs are to be accommodated unless other providers cannot be found.”
This is flatly untrue. Whatever your views regarding what the law *should* be, free exercise law in the United States has never been clear. Pre-1990 (when Employment Division v. Smith was decided and set off the current free exercise debates), the Court had ruled the way you suggest in a couple of cases: The religious beliefs of Seventh-Day Adventists had to be accommodated when it came to working on Saturday, for example, and the religious beliefs of the Amish regarding homeschooling had to be accommodated (sort of, they didn’t get everything they wanted). But the Court had also held that laws requiring that stores be closed on Sunday were constitutional, even though that harmed Orthodox Jews who closed their stores on Saturdays; held that the military could prohibit Jews from wearing yarmulkes; held that the Amish could be forced to pay social security taxes in violation of their religious beliefs; and (perhaps most relevant for this group) held that polygamy could be outlawed.
Religious freedom is a very difficult area of the law. I have no problem with individuals or even constitutional scholars having a wide range of opinions on what the law should be. But let’s not pretend it is super easy or super obvious or that current debates are in some way a dramatic departure from the debates we’ve been having for the last 150 years. This area of the law is simply very complex.
Elisa, On “religious freedom work” outside “anti-LGBTQ work”:
There seems to be at least some evidence of such work (though not in the US legal arena where the effort was by a group of Mormon scholars rather than the Church organization itself). See e.g.:
“As part of President Russell M. Nelson’s ministry to the Pacific in May, he met with Muslim leaders in New Zealand and donated $100,000 from the Church to help rebuild the mosques attacked in Christchurch on March 15.”
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/church/news/first-presidency-meets-with-prominent-muslim-leader-to-build-interfaith-friendship?lang=eng
https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/mormons-join-muslims-to-ring-in-the-persian-new-year
https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/church-offers-chapel-for-worship-to-members-of-islamic-community
https://irusa.org/mormons-muslims-team-up-on-overseas-aid-projects/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/04/27/we-have-to-take-a-stand-mormon-history-scholars-file-brief-against-trump-travel-ban/
None of this affects the fact that much of the “religious freedom” talk from senior Church leaders, BYU faculty, and the Church Newsroom is a mixture of “anti-LGBTQ sexual behavior and social recognition work” and concern, however misplaced it seems to be, for religious freedom generally. It seems the concern for religious freedom generally takes such a backseat to the current primary agenda that it can be really hard for many to see.
Of past campaigns such at ETB’s anti-Black-civil-rights polemics and the Church’s anti-ERA campaign of the 70s could similarly have been spun as “religious freedom” campaigns — at least as many members then seem to have understood their religion. Incidentally, in the locale where I lived through the anti-ERA campaign it seemed to be more anti-LGBT, i.e. based on fear of hypothetical results, than it was anti-feminine. That may have been a local spin, for all I know. I don’t recall those ETB and anti-ERA efforts actually being claimed to be about religious freedom. That memory probably feeds into my belief that the current emphasis on “religious freedom” is primarily a smoke-screen for anti-LGBT legal activities, despite the concept’s being generally (and occasionally specifically) much broader than that.
I once asked someone who knew some of our senior Church leadership personally why it was that they seemed unable to see that civil marriage in a religiously pluralistic society needs to be treated differently (as a matter of religious freedom) that the question whether it should be treated as “marriage” for the purposes of any one particular religious organization. The answer I got was that while some of us in fact lived in a pluralistic society, the Brethren did not — they lived in an echo-chamber, talking to each other and being idolized by the active members they cared about. Maybe that was too harsh, but maybe there is something to it.
@Jonathan, apart from your disagreement on the nature of the cases Angela cited, do you have any examples of religious freedom issues the Church is supporting (with resources like amicus briefs and donations – not just lip service – although I’d take lip service too at this point) that do not involve homosexuality, gay marriage, or abortion?
@Geoff AUS, excellent point.
Jonathan, one more thing. If religions are so oppressed by this secular specter that has somehow managed to take over the Republican-packed courts, as you suggest, how is it that the Mormon church has managed to amass over $100 billion dollars becoming one of richest organizations on the planet, and still be considered a tax-exempt organization? There is so much leeway given to religions in the US that they can amass unfathomable wealth and with that wealth exert influence on policy and court-packing, even selling their souls to fully back someone as immoral and anti-religious as Trump simply because he sold them on a lie.
Elisa, I haven’t seen any evidence of legal briefs on other religious freedom issues, but there’s evidence of donations, e.g. “As part of President Russell M. Nelson’s ministry to the Pacific in May, he met with Muslim leaders in New Zealand and donated $100,000 from the Church to help rebuild the mosques attacked in Christchurch on March 15.”
There was also at least one belated donation to an organization attempting to feed/serve homeless LGBT youth.
There’s more on some efforts with respect to Muslims in a comment stuck in moderation. Most of those efforts, however, are either not formally the Church or not in the US legal arena. While they are out there, I don’t think they amount to enough to be confident that the current “religious freedom” rhetoric is not at least mostly a smoke screen for the Church’s anti-LGBT efforts.
Let’s see if I can respond to some of these (in no particular order) — I will do my best to keep my frustration out of this post and, again, my apologies for failing in that respect last night:
@Christian V:
“Whatever your views regarding what the law *should* be, free exercise law in the United States has never been clear. ”
I was just describing one singular issue, here — I will agree that free exercise law is a mess generally. I did my substantive on the problems arising from disconnecting the free enterprise and the establishment clauses of the First Amendment (the evidence shows they are one clause, not two, and our problems arise from judging them with two separate standards).
“But let’s not pretend it is super easy or super obvious or that current debates are in some way a dramatic departure from the debates we’ve been having for the last 150 years.”
Again, the issue I was raising was discrete (and almost certain the failure of communication was mine) — it was on the right of the government to compel an affirmative act (as in compelling a doctor to perform an abortion or a baker to make a cake).
@John W:
“Jonathan, one more thing. If religions are so oppressed by this secular specter that has somehow managed to take over the Republican-packed courts, as you suggest, how is it that the Mormon church has managed to amass over $100 billion dollars becoming one of richest organizations on the planet, and still be considered a tax-exempt organization? ”
Because the interjection of taxation into clerical functions of a religious organization is an impermissible entanglement. It is funny to see those who are ready to cite “separation of Church and state” to not recognize that this same principle is the basis of the tax exempt status of Churches. And t say that the Church is not taxed is to misunderstand the law — the Church is taxed outside of its core religious functions. BYU Bookstore? Pays taxes. Deseret Book? Pays taxes on books that they sell but not on temple clothing. UBIT (or UBTI) requires that anytime a tax-exempt entity enters the marketplace they are taxed as if they were not tax exempt insofar as they are in the market.
@Elisa:
“@Jonathan, apart from your disagreement on the nature of the cases Angela cited, do you have any examples of religious freedom issues the Church is supporting?”
Two hot areas of law, off the top of my head, are religious discrimination in zoning (rezoning to preclude houses of worship) and continuing litigation on ministerial exceptions with hiring. The latter often (but not always) raises some of the issues you are describing but the former almost never do (and are usually the result of anti-religious activism). Incidentally, and the Church doesn’t dwell on this too much, but they are actively involved in religious freedom cases for other religions (not just Christian religions).
@Geoff-Aus:
“If you change the object in each example from discriminating against gay people to discriminating against coloured people do you still refuse to bend the knee?”
This is one of those arguments that seems more clever on its face than it does when you burrow down into it (it reminds me of the atheist argument that they only believe in one less god — pithy, but vapid). First, there are distinctions between the two which you are undoubtedly aware of (and ignore because it hurts your argument). Secondly, on a Constitutional basis the laws requiring performance in relation to black people has been justified by the Courts only because of the particular evil of American slavery as an institution. Simply because, as a consequence of slavery, we will compel people to engage in certain behaviors they might otherwise wish to not engage in (the cure being drastic because the harm was exceptional) doesn’t mean that the Constitution can suddenly be read to require all people to do all things that the State might demand of them — even good things. We are not the ants of “Once and Future King” — there are good things that the State cannot compel us to do and bad things the State cannot compel us not to do.
@John @:
Your earlier post deserves a response on its own. I’ll respond in a moment.
I should have said “legal briefs from the Church on other religious freedom issues”. There is one highly publicized from a substantial group of “Mormon scholars” on Trump’s anti-Muslim policy.
@Wondering – yes, I do remember some activity form the Church around the Muslim ban / refugees, and the mosque that was bombed, and I was very happy to see that.
@Jonathan, ministerial exception is generally tied up with LGBTQ issues (as you acknowledged). On zoning, is that something the Church is putting resources towards? I suppose I’m thinking now the Church was probably also involved in some of the challenges to state orders that prevented religious services during Covid. That issue is so very political but I did see a problem with opening casinos and not churches …
I’m really genuinely interested to learn about religious freedom issues the Church lends support to. I know I sound jaded about it – because I am, because I’ve been so disappointed to see the Church weaponize religious freedom against gay people (and women who need access to reproductive services …). I was actually a fellow with the law & religion institute during law school and I know that they work on other issues internationally, but my involvement there and in the JCRLS is precisely why I’m so disappointed at the direction it’s mostly taken and they way the Church is deploying resources to support its right to discriminate.
But if the Church is using resources to support other religious freedom initiatives I would be very happy to learn that and would un-jade myself a bit.
***
Back to the subject of the post, I’ve been thinking a lot since reading it about pools and communities and it is really opening my eyes how stereotypes about blacks & Latinos not being able to swim are totally rooted in privilege. Those populations didn’t have access to pools. There are plenty of rich people sports, but swimming is not just a fancy white people hobby – it can actually be a matter of life and death. Thanks for opening me eyes to that issue Angela.
Also @Wondering, I am also aware of work that LDS scholars do on religious freedom – and that is great – but on this particular issue more interested in support directly from the LDS Church, such as amicus briefs.
Jonathan: I tend to agree that zoning laws that preclude Churches are an area where religious freedom should be protected, and of the 8 cases on the Church’s newsroom page, ONE case was related to that (which the church in question still lost, but then the mayor changed the policy to allow it). My only concern / question in that case was how to decide which churches to privilege as the use of a public school after hours feels like a big benefit vs. having to buy or rent a space, but that’s just a policy matter–I assume first come, first served. It does appear in that case that NYC’s statute was deliberately anti-religious, but I’m not sure what created that. As the brief itself pointed out, it was incredibly uncommon that NYC had this kind of policy and cited 49 of 50 other similar requests where no such statute existed.
As to the so-called “rights” of individuals in society to deliberately exclude or discriminate against other members of society, I will never be convinced that so long as they can find someone else to provide the service, it’s OK for them to be barred from a service in the public square. That’s exactly what happened during segregation, and it takes a toll on a person to confront discrimination. It’s unfair for someone to be denied service at a non-religious institution that serves the public. So yes, I 100% believe that if you own a cake shop, you have to bake that cake and not be a dick to people just because you hate gay people (since when did hatred of LGBT become a religious imperative? It wasn’t one when I was growing up). But a Church is certainly not obligated to host a gay wedding if they choose not to do so.
Trickier are the Church-owned organizations like universities, hospitals and adoption agencies. The LDS Church got out of the adoption agency gig for this very reason, because it wasn’t a slam dunk right for them to refuse adoptions for singles or gay people. They got out of scouting because scouting was about to stop discriminating against gay people, and had also allowed girls to join. Universities and hospitals that push for the same rights as religions, IMO, are in a very gray area. You might prefer we maximize the religion’s right to discriminate, and I would prefer we do the opposite. That doesn’t make either of us deep state actors or part of some secret cabal.
I may be disappointed in the Church’s efforts to make heroes of bigots, but I can’t say I’m surprised. It’s just a constant low-grade source of disappointment. I recognize the Church’s freedom to discriminate against women and LGBT people, even though I believe it’s morally reprehensible. They used these exact same arguments about black people until they no longer could.
@John W:
“There is currently more religious freedom in the US than there has ever been.”
I would be interested to see your basis for that. There are some places within the country where religious freedom is flourishing. But there are others where anti-religious animus is out of control. Fortunately the U. S. Supreme Court is still protective of religious liberty (and, before you think that a Conservative/Liberal thing, many decisions are 9-0) but it is worrisome how many cases get to a 9-0 court because lower Courts ruled against religions in what should be plain examples of discrimination. Yes, there is nothing akin to the Missouri Extermination Order. Yes, we are more respectful of religious pluralities in some of our laws than before. But while interfaith religious freedom is on the rise (thankfully) the growing conflict between secularism and religion is not as rosy as the picture you paint.
“And the main threats to religious freedom really are coming from white evangelical Christians who hate Muslims and LGBTQ+s, cannot tolerate non-Christian religions (especially Islam), and cannot tolerate the right of individuals to have freedom from religion.”
I don’t see this, and would be interested to see you substantiate that claim. Historically there are a number of bad actors within the religious communities (in fact one of the seminal cases on the subject arose because of Baptists [I believe] discriminating against a LDS student) but to describe that as the “main threats” over secular governmental actors expressly hostile to religion using the mechanisms of power of the State (seriously, go look at the comments of the State actors in the Masterpiece Bakery case — they were actively hostile to religion and using this baker as a prop in a culture war) requires more than a summary statement. Also, freedom “from” religion must be found in tension with freedom “of” religion — your right to be free of religion does not supersede my right to my religion.
“The religious freedom “crisis” is mostly a crying of wolf.”
I certain don’t think it is crying wolf, and I try to track this with a reasoned mind (my post last night notwithstanding). We are seeing an increase in State actions against religious organizations. We are seeing an increase in animus towards religion in the culture (which will inevitably affect laws and judges as time goes on). Hate crimes against religions have tripled in a decade — growing victims in all segments.
We have people, confident in their opinions they gathered on reddit, proclaiming sweeping changes to the delicate balance acquired over time between freedom of religion and anti-discrimination. And, on the other side, you see a large group of people who legitimately believe their religion who see this animus and will not bend the knee. And that is the recipe for sectarian civil war — which I don’t want, I don’t think you want, but absent respect for differences and enough room for those differences to breathe, that is where this leads.
“Jonathan, in typical lawyer fashion, you miss the forest for the trees.”
This is the part, though, that I wanted to hit because I think it is the most important. In my perspective, here is the forest. This life on Earth is a continuation of the War in Heaven. “This life is a test, and it only makes sense as a test.” –Sister Dew. Put another way, with all of our varying conflicts there is really only one conflict that is happening right now and it is the exact same conflict that has been happening since the Garden of Eden. All of our differences — including our current political differences — must be viewed in that light because that is the forest and whatever issue of the day that comes up is just the trees.
Two things, though, before I get into this. First, this can excuse thinking of yourself as the ‘good’ guys and your political rivals as the ‘bad’ guys. There is no justification for that on either side. Ideologies can be good or bad (and we can judge them by their fruits) but people are all flawed and yet of infinite worth. Secondly, the well has been poisoned a bit by those who claim religious approval for things that God is silent on (as Judge Griffith once said, as far as he knows the Lord has no policy revealed through his prophets of the appropriate top marginal tax rate).
That being said, the ascension of the current secular ideology is not one that is leading to good fruits. There was an editor of Teen Vogue who was fired because of racist tweets she made when she was a teenager. She apologized for them years earlier, and yet she lost her admitted dream job because of them. Now that is just one incident that happened to be in the news recently. Hugh Nibley once said that we differ from the angels because we can repent and forgive — where is the space in this ideology for repentance or forgiveness? If there is no space granted for forgiveness or repentance, isn’t that a pretty good sign of the fruits of this ideology?
I often use this thought experiment. Christ left the 99 to go after the one. Which one was He talking about? Yes, the marginalized and the hurt and the oppressed. But also the sinner. Is racism a sin? Is a racist a sinner? If the answer to both is yes, how have you left the 99 to reach out with love to the one (the one who is racist) to bring him or her back into the fold? If you haven’t, why not? Is racism so unique that it alone is beyond the reach of the infinite Atonement? Do you convince yourself that God doesn’t love the racist? If these questions make you at all uncomfortable, I would encourage you to consider why.
Further, this secular ideology is leading people away from the Church. If the Church is what it says that it is (and I believe that, and will presume that you do as well for the sake of this post — I don’t know whether you have said either way) then isn’t that a demonstration of the fruits of this ideology? If it takes people away from the Gospel of Jesus Christ, shouldn’t that be a giant red warning flag that regardless of whether it is culturally ascendant there is something fundamentally wrong with it?
We know that there will be a sifting, and it is heartbreaking to see. I see LGBT issues on the left the same way I see immigration issues on the right. As a Conservative, I have very strong beliefs about what immigration should be — that a country that does not protect its borders is not a country at all and that politicians have the moral obligation to exert the mechanisms of the State solely (or at least primarily) for the benefit of her citizens. But the Church came out with a position saying that I am wrong on that belief. So now I am left with a choice. Is the Church what it says it is? If so, do I serve God or is politics my god?
Likewise, many on this board undoubtedly have very strong opinions on LGBT issues. While we all should agree that all are children of God of infinite worth and should be treated in accordance with that value (contention is of the Devil regardless of which side of the contention you are on — not just if you happen to be wrong) the Church has taken an unambiguous stand on the issue of gay marriage. So everyone who disagrees has a choice. Is the Church what it says it is? If so, do you serve God or is politics your god?
That’s the big picture — what think ye of Christ — and all of our disagreements come down to that in one fashion or another. I certainly don’t put myself on the side of God in this debate — look at the flawed post I made yesterday if you want any proof of that — but regardless of how effective I am as a messenger that is still the question. LDS who get too enamored with the secular ideology (including the secular description on LGBT issues), in what I have seen, tend to walk down roads that lead them away from the Gospel. The majority who take that road tend to abandon repentance (I am perfect the way that I am) and forgiveness (your racism places you beyond redemption in our modern society). These are the fruits I see of the ideology — the forest, as you say — and they are not good fruits.
Jonathan: You imply that anyone who disagrees with the Church’s stance on LGBT people has chosen politics over God. 1) the Church’s stance has changed on this issue a LOT in my lifetime, 2) it’s just as easy to say that the Church leaders are choosing politics over God. What makes them less susceptible to this pressure you so readily ascribe to others?
Elisa (12:37pm) — Yes. I can’t find any. That’s at best disappointing and at worst fairly convincing evidence that religious freedom for all is not the Church organization’s concern, but instead “religious freedom” for individuals and institutions to discriminate against LGBT people even in areas of public, civil concern and not specifically religious belief or ritual or even approval.
Angela: “They got out of scouting because scouting was about to stop discriminating against gay people, and had also allowed girls to join.”
“…if you own a cake shop, you have to bake that cake and not be a dick to people just because you hate gay people…”
Could these be oversimplifications?
BSA allowed girls in Venture troops years before the Church got out of BSA sponsorship. At least initially, BSA allowed the sponsors of troops to decide whether they would accept gay scouts or scout leaders. That was also some time before the Church got out of BSA sponsorship. There had been decades-long agitation from a good number of people convinced that scouting as the Church program for young men was not meeting varied needs and contributing to driving some out of the Church. Yes, Elder Ballard expressed an opinion that BSA had left the Church, but I suspect the stronger influence in the delay after it became clear enough that scouting did not meet needs was the fact that Thomas Monson had been on the national BSA board for ca 40 years and the Brethren didn’t want to sever ties while he was reportedly incapacitated.
The Colorado cake shop case was reportedly not a matter of baking a cake or hating gay people. It was reportedly a matter of artistic design of a wedding cake — allegedly participation by the “artist” in a matter to which he had religious objections. Reportedly he was perfectly willing to bake a non-wedding cake for gay folks. I suspect the word “hate” is so significantly overused in recent years that it may actually be changing meaning. While I disagree with that Colorado “artistic” baker’s analysis of his religious objection and his “participating” in the wedding, I’m not sure it’s fair to characterize him as hating gay people. BTW, if I remember correctly, the case was not decided on his claims, but rather on the bad discriminatory actions of various state actors. Did I get that wrong?
I just wonder if less inflammatory language would be more persuasive.
@Jonathan you said: “The majority who take that road tend to abandon repentance (I am perfect the way that I am) and forgiveness (your racism places you beyond redemption in our modern society). These are the fruits I see of the ideology — the forest, as you say — and they are not good fruits.“
This is a huge, totally unsupported assumption / generalization. I truly don’t see that happening anymore outside the Church than inside. Likewise, I see plenty of people outside who are still repenting, improving, and forgiving daily.
Very unproductive us / them mindset.
Wondering: Yes, the Monson connection was definitely a factor in Scouting, although the admittance of girls was a carve-out the Church demanded and got (from the organization) that probably had a not-eternal shelf-life (it’s becoming much more mainstream now for girls to join BSA, which pissed off the GSA), and the gay issue was, IMO, decisive. The cake baking case as you cite it is interesting due to the “artistic” element, but seriously, what’s so different about a cake for a gay wedding and a cake for a straight wedding, artistically speaking? Exactly how does the existence of gay people and/or having to provide service to them violate someone’s religious beliefs? I don’t see the conflict; it’s a cake. They aren’t performing the ceremony. What is the religious belief that’s being violated? That gay people should not have rights in society? That they should not be allowed to have celebrations? That they should be invisible and sad?
As a people, Mormons have also been targets of discrimination, but it’s apparently not given us empathy. In Utah where Mormons are the majority and hold a lot of political power, it’s also apparent that the Church acts more like a powerful majority and stops understanding the plight of the minority.
Jonathan, your replies are quite long and a bit rambling and incoherent, so I won’t try to respond to everything, but only a couple of points:
1) “Hate crimes against religions have tripled in a decade”
I took a look at hate crimes in 2019 (https://www.statista.com/statistics/737660/number-of-religious-hate-crimes-in-the-us-by-religion/) and what did I find? Hate crimes against religious groups in 2019 were overwhelmingly anti-Jewish (62%) and anti-Muslim (11%). A whopping 1.5% were anti-Protestant. Are the perpetrators of these hate crimes secularists as you suggest? I highly doubt that. The perpetrators of these hate crimes are more than likely alt-righters inspired by Trump. As for the tripling of hate crimes against religious groups in the last decade, I wonder if that has something to do with Trump fomenting a new tide of racism in the US? Hmm. The evidence you’re using to confirm your point that secularists are increasingly targeting right-wing Christians actually seems to confirm my point more, which is that the assault on religious freedom is coming far more from the conservative side against non-Christians than the liberal side against right-wing Christians.
2) On the LDS church amassing over $100 billion, you missed my point. That a historically persecuted religious minority, which had its wealth confiscated by the US government under the 1887 Edmunds-Tucker Act and fell into deep debt and financial stress for decades following, has been able to amass such wealth in the US in a testament to there being an incredible expanse of religious freedom in the last century. In fact, perhaps too much.
3) ” this secular ideology is leading people away from the Church… If it takes people away from the Gospel of Jesus Christ, shouldn’t that be a giant red warning flag?”
So we should try to inject the US government system with mechanisms of Christian dominance to keep people from becoming secular? An important component of freedom of religion is freedom from religion. Your comments have revealed to me enough about you to say this: you don’t support real religious freedom. Your cries for religious freedom are a charade and an appeal to a bad faith victimhood narrative to justify homophobia and right-wing Christian dominance (hey, even if that means propping up and forming a personality cult around the most morally bankrupt president in US history).
Jonathan said something I feel is worth emphasizing:
“While we all should agree that all are children of God of infinite worth and should be treated in accordance with that value (contention is of the Devil regardless of which side of the contention you are on — not just if you happen to be wrong) the Church has taken an unambiguous stand on the issue of gay marriage. So everyone who disagrees has a choice. Is the Church what it says it is?”
Indeed! For all the mental twists and turns we come up with to validate our various levels of participation in the organization of the church, I think issues like this with a clear (for some) answer need to be considered more carefully. Doubtless, many active members barely give the issue of civil rights in 2021 a second thought.
Is the church really what it says it is?
@foxinhikingshots: You mean, is it the restored gospel of Jesus Christ and the only organization with the authority to act in his name? In my opinion, it is not. It sounds like both you and Jonathon are framing this as a “the true church said it, so we have to fall in line, like it or not” scenario. The church has taken other unambiguous stands, until their stands became more ambiguous.
I will also add my vote for Caste: The Origins of Our Discontents by Isabel Wilkerson. What an absolutely eye-opening, heart-rending, shame-inducing book. Growing up in small town Utah, the issues of race and civil rights and Jim Crow all seemed to be part of another world. Now I realize there are very specific reasons the places I grew up in were nearly devoid of Black citizens.
If you can wrench the ideals of the Great American Myth from its stranglehold on your mind for just a few moments, you can finally see how so many “truths” we “know” are just lies to perpetuate a caste system hundreds of years old. These ideals have gained new strength recently:
America is the greatest country in the world.
The American government was founded by God.
The Constitution is flawless.
America’s current quality of life is better than anywhere else in the world.
If you work hard in America you will “make it”.
If you are suffering in America it’s because you aren’t willing to work.
God blesses the righteous with monetary wealth.
America belongs to God’s Chosen People.
Clear your mind of these “truths” that have been hammered into us for generations and you will start to see things for what they really are. You will understand history for the horror that it is. What this all means for the church (having tied itself so firmly to the American story), I think I’m still processing.
Jaredsbrother:
What I’m trying to say, since the church is so firmly on the wrong side of LGBTQ civil rights, how can we continue to believe it is what it claims to be?
Sorry for the confusion.
@Angela:
“What makes them less susceptible to this pressure you so readily ascribe to others?”
Either the Church is what it says that it is or it is not. If it is, then even if they are wrong (and they can be) we are not justified to place our own opinions over them. If they are not, this is just a social organization that is ultimately meaningless in the grand scheme of things.
@Wondering and @Eliza:
It is a bit of impossible situation you brought up. The last two zoning issues before Bronx House actually involved the Church. Bronx House has an amicus filed by the Council of Churches of the City of New York but the amicus expressly limited participation to those Church who would potentially use the schools — and, as we have our own meetinghouses, we did not therefore join. The Church is not picking the battleground but dealing with the battleground where it happens to be.
@Wondering:
“BTW, if I remember correctly, the case was not decided on his claims, but rather on the bad discriminatory actions of various state actors. Did I get that wrong?”
Yes, unfortunately, this is true.
@Eliza:
“This is a huge, totally unsupported assumption / generalization.”
You cut off the sentence before. Note I explicitly said “in what I have seen.”
“Very unproductive us / them mindset.”
If you are getting that, either I am not communicating well (always possible) or you are misreading what I am writing. It is not us versus them on either side. We are not the combatants — we are the battleground.
@Angela:
“I don’t see the conflict; it’s a cake.”
You’re being disingenuous here. If it doesn’t matter whether the person can get another cake from someone else, then it isn’t about the cake. For the same reason why you want to insist that he bake the cake he is entitled to not bake the cake. Because, by your own admission, it is not about the cake (unless you want to deflect by saying it is just a cake).
“What is the religious belief that’s being violated? That gay people should not have rights in society? That they should not be allowed to have celebrations? That they should be invisible and sad?”
There’s an old saw that unless you can express the other person’s point of view so well that they agree with what you are saying, you don’t understand them well enough to argue against them. You are essentially acknowledging that you don’t understand those who disagree with you. What’s more, you are making no attempt to understand them (all while accusing them of lacking empathy). I would hope that I could express the logical foundations of your opinion sufficiently where you would fully agree that I understand what you are saying. If you cannot do the same, it might be that those who disagree with you aren’t completely irrational, mustachio-twirling villains.
@John W:
“Are the perpetrators of these hate crimes secularists as you suggest? I highly doubt that. The perpetrators of these hate crimes are more than likely alt-righters inspired by Trump. ” and “As for the tripling of hate crimes against religious groups in the last decade, I wonder if that has something to do with Trump fomenting a new tide of racism in the US? ”
That does not explain the rise of hate crimes against religion prior to 2016. And much of the anti-Jewish hate crimes are, in fact, associated with secularism. Some larger-profiles atrocities were committed by other religionists but that cannot explain the rise in anti-Semitic violence in New York City, for example (not exactly MAGA country).
” Your comments have revealed to me enough about you to say this: you don’t support real religious freedom. Your cries for religious freedom are a charade and an appeal to a bad faith victimhood narrative to justify homophobia and right-wing Christian dominance (hey, even if that means propping up and forming a personality cult around the most morally bankrupt president in US history).”
Hmmm. I reckon you might want a mulligan on that one. Only fair to give you one — I needed one last night.
Jonathan: I suspect any further exchange is going to be fruitless, but I will address your comments to me specifically.
“Either the Church is what it says that it is or it is not.” It is not. I am also not what I say I am. That’s due to a combination of reasons: 1) I am more than any description of me, 2) I am different things in different contexts, 3) I can be wrong, including about myself, 4) I change over time in understanding and aspiration, 5) what we say we are is always about portrayal, not about being, and 4) self-awareness is elusive.
“If it is, then even if they are wrong (and they can be) we are not justified to place our own opinions over them.” Why in hell not? I am absolutely justified in placing my own opinions first in my life. That’s the only moral thing we can do is be true to our principles. Even Oaks has said, repeatedly (although maybe not that recently for some reason) that personal revelation trumps Church-level mandates and revelation and that they will never preach to the exception which nevertheless exists. When George Romney marched for civil rights, he was taken to task by racist Church leaders who complained he made them look bad and that segregation was God’s will. Helmutt Huebner was excommunicated for opposing the Nazi party. Was that justified? If you are the parent of a gay child, you are not in the right to put the Church’s values ahead of the well-being of your own child. We are still responsible for acting morally regardless of the Church’s position. They aren’t living our lives, and different Church leaders have different opinions.
“If they are not, this is just a social organization that is ultimately meaningless in the grand scheme of things” I could not disagree more with the sentiment that a Church’s value is only in its ability to replace or dictate one’s personal moral code. It’s a community of disciples working together to become more Christlike. Through diversity and sharing of opinions, we can find value, pool resources, and do a greater good together than we can as individuals. I don’t find value in taking orders, voting as a bloc, or being an automaton; on the contrary, all of these are things that make a person less, not help a person achieve their greatest potential.
For the record, Jonathan, I found a lot to think about in your posts, and did not find them either rambling or incoherent, even if I still disagree on several things. My response here, by contrast, will certainly be rambling and incoherent because it is just several disconnected comments.
First, John W. wrote, “the main threats to religious freedom really are coming from white evangelical Christians who hate Muslims and LGBTQ+s,” and Jonathan responded, “I don’t see this, and would be interested to see you substantiate that claim.” This reminded me of a risk that I think the Church has failed to appreciate in its religious freedom push: Once achieved, religious freedom may well be used against Mormons to a greater degree than it will ever be used by Mormons against gays or anyone else. Two years ago, the largest taxpayer-funded foster care agency in South Carolina, Miracle Hill, refused to place children with a Catholic family, because it served only evangelical Protestants. Notably, the local parish stood by the family and expressed outrage at the discrimination, but the archdiocese indicated support for the foster care agency. In its view, the right of Catholic adoption agencies to discriminate against same-sex couples was so important that it would endorse discrimination by other Christians against its own people. I recall a great deal of angst in the Church after several Mormons resigned from their jobs under pressure after it was discovered that they had supported Prop. 8. In all of the instances I am aware of, they really were resignations, as terminations would likely be illegal under state and federal nondiscrimination laws. But if the Church succeeds in its religious freedom push, you will undoubtedly see people claiming they have a sincerely and deeply held belief that they cannot in good conscious employ a Mormon, and suddenly the nondiscrimination laws that protect Church members won’t be there.
Re: slavery and race discrimination, I understand Jonathan’s point, but I have a very hard time accepting it. I know there are many libertarians, for example, who oppose all nondiscrimination laws because they infringe the freedom of businesses to do whatever they want, while a minority of libertarians will admit that slavery and segregation were so entrenched and so terrible that government-mandated nondiscrimination for race is necessary (even while maintaining an opposition to nondiscrimination laws based on sex or religion or sexual orientation, etc.). But I have a very hard time accepting that we’re going to take this one attribute and elevate it above all others and declare that only race-based mistreatment is off-limits, while mistreatment based on all other attributes is permissible.
Finally, two thoughts regarding the baker. First, I think Justice Kagan did an excellent job during oral arguments at tearing down the claim that the discrimination was artistic expression and therefore deserved some kind of protection as speech that went above and beyond the requirement to not discriminate when selling cupcakes or a non-wedding cake or something similarly generic. Justice Kagan basically went through every contributor at a wedding–the florist, the chef for dinner, the waiters, the calligrapher for the invitations, the person who prints the menu or the program, the make-up artists, the hairstylists, the dress designer, the tailor, the architect of the wedding venue, the photographer, etc.–and asked which of them were engaging in speech and which were not. And the lawyer’s answers were all over the place. There was almost no discernible way (except perhaps as to the photographer) to explain which of these people could be compelled to provide services because the nondiscrimination laws applied, and which should be exempt because their contribution to the ceremony was in some way speech-based or artistic. So I’m pretty skeptical of that distinction. If we say the baker has the religious freedom to not bake a wedding cake for a gay couple, I think we have to say he also has the religious freedom to not sell them pre-made cupcakes for a book club. The latter situation may not arise as often as the first situation, because the number of people who have strong religious feelings about serving gay people at all is much smaller than the number who have strong religious feelings about participating in gay weddings. But as a legal matter, I don’t think there would be a difference.
Second, Angela said, “So yes, I 100% believe that if you own a cake shop, you have to bake that cake and not be a dick to people just because you hate gay people (since when did hatred of LGBT become a religious imperative? It wasn’t one when I was growing up).” Which reminded of me of something else I really, really, really wish the Church would do when arguing in favor of religious freedom: Strongly condemn discrimination even while supporting the right to do so. When the ACLU famously defended the rights of Nazis to hold a parade in the 1970s, everyone understood that the ACLU was anti-Nazi. Several of the attorneys involved were themselves Jewish. And they made clear, repeatedly, that they did not support the substance of the speech, but because freedom of speech for everyone was important, they were willing to go to court to fight for them. While it would still probably upset me, it would go a loooong way toward making me feel better if the Church, as part of its religious freedom messaging, said, “Look, our religious liberty was egregiously violated by the federal government 140 years ago, and because of that history, we are going to aggressively lobby and sue and campaign to make sure the U.S. has some of the strongest religious liberty laws in the world. But just because someone has the right to do something doesn’t mean they should. Our unequivocal instruction to our members is *do not discriminate.* Bake the wedding cake for the gay couple. Take their wedding photos. Go to the wedding and give them a present and wish them the best. There is absolutely nothing in any of our scriptures that would justify business owners mistreating members of our community, even if we think it is important, for slippery slope reasons, that the law not force you to treat everyone fairly.”
Instead, you have the Church still citing the interview by Elder Oaks from 15 years ago when he suggested parents should not let their adult gay children bring their partners home for a visit over the holidays, or shouldn’t expect parents to go out in public with their gay children and their partners because that might imply approval. Of course the Church is going to support letting hotels and restaurants and everyone else discriminate against gay people so long as it also believes parents should discriminate against their gay children.
Jonathan: Back to the cake question, what limits would you place on bigotry in the name of religion? Any limits? No limits? For example, I understand that you are saying “it’s not about the cake,” which it’s clearly not. My point is that it’s not about religion because baking a cake is not a religious activity. Consider these scenarios:
– Can I take a job as a stripper and refuse to take my clothes off because stripping is against my religion?
– Can I take a job as a bartender in a gay bar and refuse to serve gay patrons? What if I am a bartender in just a general bar? Can I, in that context, refuse to serve only gay patrons? What if I own the bar?
– If I’m the cake baker, can I refuse to make cakes for anyone who had premarital sex? Can I refuse to make cakes for second marriages? Can I refuse to make cakes for Mormons? Can I refuse to accept credit cards from women because I believe only men should have money?
– If I’m a doctor, can I refuse to order a blood transfusion because I’m a Jehovah’s Witness? What if my patient dies as a result? Is that malpractice or religious freedom?
– Can I refuse to hire a highly qualified Mormon to work in my Christian bookstore because I believe Mormons are not Christian?
To each of these questions, there’s a legal answer that may or may not also be morally right.
What is fair to a gay person who pays taxes and is a good citizen? Is it fair if 4 out of 5 businesses in their small town refuse to serve them, but one will? Is it fair if they have to drive to another town for a service? Is it fair if they have to cross state lines to find someone willing to help them? Do we allow businesses to discriminate against law-abiding, tax-paying members of the public and still keep a business license?
@Jonathon: I appreciate your mention of cancel culture and the recent incident with the new (now former)editor of Teen Vogue. We’ve seen this play out countless times in recent months, and I find it disturbing. I think the question is, yes, about forgiveness, but I’m unclear on how you connected secularism to an inability or unwillingness to practice forgiveness. Are you drawing a distinction between a current thing you’re calling “secular ideology” and simply being secular? This seems to me more like a cultural trend that will pass, not the enduring characteristic of a new governing ideology, if there has ever been such a thing. It also seems like a movement mostly driven by young people who will find themselves more in need of forgiveness as they age.
I can’t speak for Angela, but what she alludes to, IMHO, is that the examples the church uses of infringements on freedom of religion require the most expansive view of the amendment. I guess (not being a lawyer) that’s the view the courts have adopted. But in almost all the cited examples, was anyone actually kept from practicing a religious rite or meeting as a community? Perhaps only in NY, and the city rectified that. In almost all the other cases, individuals with religious sensibilities asked that they not have to deal with gay people, and that seems like it’s about it. I remain flummoxed that “freedom of religion” now means the right to not have to deal with people who don’t hold to my chosen lifestyle. What am I misreading?
It’s not just that the individual cases referenced seem to focus primarily on LGBTQ people. It’s also that the organizations, which I’m not sure the first amendment necessarily protects in all their various function, are still free to discriminate and accumulate in ways that would appear to have little to do with religious freedom. Following the advice of L. Ron Hubbard, the Joel Osteens of the world accumulate billions and live lavish lives in the name of an impoverished Jewish carpenter. The whole point of the Ensign Peak Advisors whistleblower suit was that the Mormon church had accumulated billions with the legal obligation to spend some of that on charitable acts, which they never did. Now no one thinks the IRS will actually go after the church, which makes me wonder how religious organizations got such a sweet deal in this country.
” of the anti-Jewish hate crimes are, in fact, associated with secularism”
Oh please. Anti-Semitism is overwhelmingly associated with right-wing philosophies. It is only in the Republican Party that anti-Semite Marjorie Taylor Greene can be given a pass for saying that Jewish space lasers caused the California fires, David Perdue can release ads attacking his Jewish opponent John Ossoff that amplify the actual size of his nose, and the Trump campaign can release Facebook ads with Nazi imagery. News flash, NYC has right-wingers. It isn’t 100% anti-Trump. Is it any wonder that American Jews (as well as American Muslims) are overwhelmingly Democrat? It is the party where they feel the most validated.
Mulligan? That was a swing and a hit.
@Angela:
“Even Oaks has said, repeatedly (although maybe not that recently for some reason) that personal revelation trumps Church-level mandates and revelation and that they will never preach to the exception which nevertheless exists.”
This is true, but note that he said revelation where I said that you are not justified to put opinion ahead of the Church. That’s a very big difference. If the Lord tells you to go and get married to your same-sex partner — go get married to your same-sex partner. And I don’t put it beyond the realm of possibility that God could tell someone that — just be sure of your marching orders from the Lord but once you have them go and do what He tells you. When someone comes to me and tells me that God told them to do that (and it has happened), my response has literally been ‘that’s between you and Him, then’ and the discussion ends because I have no way to know what specific instructions that the Lord gave to one of His children. But that is not what we are talking about here.
“Why in hell not? I am absolutely justified in placing my own opinions first in my life.”
This approach, in the scriptures, is described as become a god unto oneself. It doesn’t end well.
In any event, I am a guest here so if you “suspect any further exchange is going to be fruitless” I’ll bow out.
Jonathan: As to the difference between revelation and opinion, I’ll appeal to the definition of pornography: “I know it when I see it.” But I’m aware that some Mormons in Provo called lingerie billboards “pornographic,” and I saw them, and I didn’t see them as pornography. So it is with revelation. When I was at BYU, I heard men tell my friends that despite their refused proposal, they should reconsider because he had received “personal revelation” that they should get married. Good luck to anyone trying to distinguish personal revelation who isn’t the person in question.
I do appreciate your willingness to concede that a gay person can receive personal revelation to marry a gay partner, and that you agree with me that personal revelation is impossible to argue with. That’s a Mormon theological question rather than a legal one, however.
Placing my own opinions first in my life is what we all do, and does it make us gods unto ourselves? I don’t think so, in that I also believe I can be wrong. I am always acting on the best information I have at the time, but sometimes I learn and change my view. Placing someone else’s opinions first in one’s life is not wise, IMO, nor is being close-minded to the possibility that you (or your chosen authority) may be wrong. If your opinion is that the Church’s stance is always morally superior to your own, then that is in essence your opinion about the Church’s moral infallibility, so I suppose you are living according to your own opinion just as I am.
It’s interesting that this blog post (and blog in general) are so focused on the perspective of white, wealthy, Mountain West Mormons (mirroring the focus of the LDS Church). You speak of religious freedom as it pertains to cake shops and other first world businesses, but you ignore the much harsher and more prevalent violations of religious freedom across the world (see the Uighurs in China). Why so much angst about LGBQT buying cakes, but not so much about the slaughter religious minorities outside of the U.S.?
The same goes for the LDS Church: filing briefs in the U.S. for all sorts of cases, but what has it done with its hundreds of billions to stop religious persecution elsewhere? I’m not aware that has even commented on the situation on the Uighurs in China or on the Christians persecuted and slaughtered in Ethiopia and Nigeria. It would be interesting to compare the LDS Church’s time, money, and resources spent on U.S. lawsuits versus religious freedom outside of the U.S.
The LDS Church leadership will fold on these political/cultural issues. For proof, look at the LDS Church’s actions in Europe over many decades, where it has offered up no noticeable opposition to progressive ideals and policies. Do not expect the LDS Church to fight against critical race theory, LGBTQ rights, socialism, or whatever, beyond milquetoast briefs in U.S. lawsuits (and maybe stern speeches to Utah congregations).
Christian V.
I think that’s not quite what Oaks said, though I understand why some would read it that way and I would not. I think I may be quite a bit more disconnected from and dismissive of GA opinions than many active members.
What Oaks said was: “That’s a decision that needs to be made individually by the person responsible, calling upon the Lord for inspiration. I can imagine that in most circumstances the parents would say… [and]
I can also imagine some circumstances in which it might be possible to say, ‘Yes, come, but don’t …
There are so many different circumstances, it’s impossible to give one answer that fits all.”
Maybe I just don’t think much of Oaks’ imagination, particularly as to what “might be possible”. To me the important part of what he said was that there are many different circumstances and the decision should be made individually by the responsible person. Perhaps I tend to discount his opinions in part out of habit, having been furious with various GAs on behalf of my gay friends from the early 70s and, since then, having run out of emotional energy to be furious rather than some milder rejecting emotion.
@Wondering, fair, but I just can’t give Oaks an ounce of credit here.
He says, “There are so many different circumstances, it’s impossible to give one answer that fits all.”
I say, “There is one answer for every circumstance, and the answer is love.”
One of the responses he proposed is loving. The other is not, and I’m sickened that it was proposed as an appropriate response to that situation in General Conference by someone who claims to be an apostle of Jesus Christ.
@Elisa: “the answer is love.” I believe everything God does with respect to His children is motivated by love. Sometimes His children don’t see it as love though.
1. A third part of the host of heaven was cast out. Love?
2. Our prayers seem to go unanswered. Love?
3. Jesus’ righteous indignation with the money changers at the temple. Love?
4. Jesus chastisement of the Pharisees (“Ye are of your father the devil”, John 8). Love?
Now I’m not suggesting that what Oaks said was all about love, but what I am suggesting is that there may be times when God’s will seems anti-love and so we naturally, but incorrectly, assume it must not be of God.
Elisa, Maybe half-an-ounce. 🙂 Were the possibilities he articulated proposed as appropriate in General Conference? (I don’t always pay attention.) These are from the “interview” he and Lance Wickman did, and not from General Conference, so far as I know.
There is at least some reasonable stuff in that “interview” and maybe even quite a bit that’s better than the old stuff I was furious about in the early 70s. (Good heavens, even BKP softened — somewhat.) But, yes, there’s a long way to go and I don’t think it can happen until at least Nelson and Oaks are gone and possibly not until Bednar is also gone. I don’t think they are open to asking the Lord questions on the subject of His plans for LGBT folks here or in the hereafter.. It seems they’re convinced they already have the answers. Similarly, some others may be convinced they already have the answers and that the answers are not the Oaks/Nelson/Bednar answers. Some of us are content not to “know” the answers about the hereafter and focus on what can be done out of love here and now.
@BWBarnett, your comment implies that LGBTQ folks are comparable to the third of heaven that was cast out, the money changers at the temple, and the Pharisees and therefore deserving of rejection by Jesus Christ. I reject that comparison. I reject any suggestion that the Church’s position on gay marriage is motivated by love or rooted in God. (I know the arguments here – “why set them up for eternal loneliness” “sinful same sex attraction will not provide lasting happiness because it’s counterfeit” etc. so please, please don’t repeat them here. I will not participate in that argument.)
It is NOT hard to decide whether it’s more loving to reject or accept a gay child and it is NOT hard to decide whether forbidding a gay child to bring his or her partner into your home is acceptance or rejection of that child. It only seems hard because the Church *makes* it hard by forcing us to choose.
The easy, intuitive answer is “accept, invite”. I believe that answer comes from the divinity within us. We only come to the contorted, rationalized “rejection is love” or “excluding them from my house isn’t rejection” through ignoring or suppressing that spark in order to fall into line with what we force ourselves to believe to be true because our leaders told us it was.
@Wondering oh you’re right that’s from the interview (which I agree has some positives – mixed bag). I do think Oaks has made similar suggestions in conference talk (such as talks where he preaches that sometimes the love of God trumps love for our gay neighbors) and I think that example has come up in other places, but I’m not in a position to locate it at the moment.
@Elisa: And you’re implying that people who trust in God are anti-gay, unloving, unaccepting.
To change the direction of the conversation, I would like to suggest that the Church needs to separate itself from Kirton, McConkie. The law firm has lived on the gravy train long enough. They need to find other customers to pay their billable hours. They consistently provide the Church with bad advise and I suspect that they charge way too much for that bad advise. For example, on Utah’s medical marijuana proposal, they listed 20+ problems, most of which were silly or redundant, clearly a case of padding billable hour. And when published in the SL Trib, most readers considered them laughable. And the referendum passed anyway.
And DHO needs to find new obsessions. His crusade for “religious freedom” is nothing more than pandering to the Christian Right. Clearly a group that the Church should steer clear of. And his assault on the LGBTQ+ community is definitely un-Christlike. I can’t help but think that DHO and KM are too closely tied together. It would be informative to know how much the Church has invested in KM. That is an excellent reason for the Church to have real financial transparency.
What if all the money that Church wastes on legal services was spent on the poor, instead of wealthy lawyers.
@BWBarnett nope, but I’m saying people who won’t let their gay kid bring a partner into their home are acting in an anti-gay, unloving, and unaccepting way, even if they’ve been led to believe by Church authorities that they’re acting out of love. And Church authorities who teach that as love in the name of Jesus Christ are taking that name in vain.
We’ve hashed this out on other threads. I don’t think God is behind those policies. I don’t think our leaders are proxies for God. I realize that you disagree. I maintain my position that this is only hard if you make it hard by creating mental contortions and theologies of exclusions, and your arguments only make sense if you accept the proposition that everything that a prophet says (no matter it’s fruits) comes from God. I do not believe that, and I do not believe there is sound foundation for such a proposition. “Because they said so” isn’t good enough. So you and I will not agree on this. We are not operating in the same factual universe and we are not playing the same game.
@bwbarnett: Nope. She’s saying that people who are anti-gay, unloving and unaccepting are anti-gay, unloving and accepting. I believe you were the one who connected God with tough love.
*unaccepting on second use
@jaredsbrother you read my mind (or rather, you fairly interpreted my comment rather than distorting it for argument’s sake).
@rogernerdhansen 100%. I am in a position to hire that law firm if I wanted to and I never will. Not only because I object to the matters they take on but because I think they do garbage work.
It seems to me that there are a few people who comment on here, not to add dimension to the conversation, nor to honestly try to understand another perspective. They just want to get other people’s goats. Sometimes they’re trying to save our lost souls by proselytizing.
I recognize the temptation to respond to personal provocations, but it is not really necessary. The down votes indicate that most people reading the comments recognize the distortions the goat getter uses. Addressing remarks to @goatgetter rewards the goat getters. State a truth if you want to, but consider not addressing them by pseudonym.
I’m thinking y’all must not have the same big brother I have. Sometimes saying, “mmmmm”, is all I can muster up, and arguably more effective than arguing.
Note: the goat getters’ mile long answers are invariably boorishly boring.
@Elisa: I didn’t say what I said in hopes that we could agree. I knew we wouldn’t. But like you, I wanted to state my beliefs here. I do appreciate you restating your beliefs even though it’s already been hashed out in other threads.
@Sasso, that’s a fair point and I’m not one to feed trolls. I actually don’t think BWBarnett behaves super trollishly but I think you’re right that he’s not open to other ideas and is here to only to proselytize (I think he’s admitted as much) and not to listen. I hate to let what I view as really harmful stuff stick around in the comments but you’re right – no reason to spend any more time on a Friday night on it ;-).
rogerdhansen: I completely agree about Kirton McConkie. That is a firm that is as backwards and bloated as they come, and the Church happily pays them again and again without demanding better performance or, ahem, DIVERSITY among their partners and shareholders: https://bycommonconsent.com/2018/04/09/on-kirton-mcconkies-lack-of-women-shareholders/
@Elisa
Agree that some things are well served by clarifying them – there’s always a balance.
Over all, OPs and commenters on W & T are quite diverse, bring out valuable viewpoints and information, and help me understand things better. Your comments are on my list of must reads. Some commenters may get a quick skim.
Very informative book for those who didn’t know about the explicitly racist roots of the GI bill:
When Affirmative Action Was White: An Untold History of Racial Inequality in Twentieth-Century America by Ira Katznelson
Religious freedom is invoked by churches as a shield to government regulation of their behavior. Sometimes that behavior is motivated by religious beliefs rooted in racism or other kinds of hatred, greed, or delusion. The Mormon Church’s black priesthood ban is a good example. The church defended that ban under religious freedom until 1978. Although the church has since renounced it (or at least the rationales for it), the church continues to hold on to it by still believing that the ban was still divinely inspired. The church will not be free until it confesses that sin and apologizes to the black people . But since doing so runs against its other belief that a Mormon prophet cannot lead people astray, it will never fully confess or apologize to those it hurt and therefore never be free from the stain of that sin. Throwing money at the NAACP or giving conference anti-racism talks at conference (while helpful) won’t do it either. I will have no interest in swimming in the Church’s pool until it does.
@Danyal – I think that’s part of the point of these comments. The Church’s claim to care about religious freedom rings hollow (and hypocritical) in light of its failure to address *actual* issues of religious persecution abroad, instead fighting on the wrong side of the culture wars in the US.
There have been posts on this blog about the Uighurs. The Church’s inaction there hasn’t gone unnoticed.
As for Europe, I suspect the Church’s lack of involvement is because (1) it has zero political or social clout there, (2) those wars are largely over, (3) in many countries there are not laws protecting religious freedom in the way the US does, and (4) overall yes the Church absolutely hyper-focuses on the Mountain West. I don’t think anyone here is suggesting otherwise.
https://nowtoronto.com/news/op-ed-atlanta-shooting-fuels-safety-fears-in-asian-community
There has been a worsening of the typical politics of scale to which humans are generally prone; something much uglier than that of the intercontinental, international, national, provincial or state, regional and municipal us-versus-them.
Remove the greatest difference among humans—race/color—and left are less obvious differences over which to hate, such as sub-racial identity (i.e. ethnicity), religion and so forth down that more inhumane scale we tumble. And throw a contemporary deadly virus into the morbid equation for a really hateful fire.
It seems that when a public person openly dreams about world peace and/or a clean, pristinely green global environment, theological fundamentalists immediately react with the presumption that he/she must therefore be Godless and, by extension, evil and/or (far worse) a socialist!
I sometimes wonder how many potential Christians have felt repelled from the faith altogether due to the vocal angry-God-condemnation brand of the religion, perhaps which more resembles the Creator described in the Quran and Torah? And could collective human need for retributive justice — regardless of Christ (and great spiritual leaders) having emphasized love/compassion and non-violence — be intrinsically linked to the same terribly flawed aspect of humankind that enables the most horrible acts of violent cruelty to readily occur on this planet (perhaps not all of which we learn about)?
On a theistic level, I believe that too many monotheists have created their God’s nature in their own angry, vengeful image.
Meanwhile, Christ’s teachings epitomize the primary component of socialism — do not hoard morbidly superfluous wealth when so very many people have little or nothing.